There is a very wide variety of Japanese programs in primary schools, both in terms of the focus of the program and the resources allocated to it.
In some states and territories, programs in many schools extend across all years of primary school (for example, SA and Vic, although this appears to be changing) while in other states and territories it is more common for programs to run for only two to four years, commencing in Years 3, 4, 5 or 6, or starting earlier and finishing at Year 4. In some cases, students are receiving Japanese classes each year, but for only one semester – a particularly invidious arrangement demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the nature of language learning.
As has been noted in previous reports (for example, Liddicoat, 2007) the time allocation for primary language programs is very variable, and tends to be low – typically under an hour, once a week, and sometimes as low as 10 minutes per week.
Some programs are well established and supported, with a qualified teacher and an assistant, dedicated and well equipped language classrooms and a clear place for Japanese in the overall curriculum. A considerable number of schools also have sister school programs which involve school visits or other forms of exchange (see section 3.5.4).
There are also a small number of immersion programs, which produce impressive linguistic outcomes, and equally positive outcomes in other curriculum areas in the school (see section 3.6.3).
At the other end of the spectrum, many programs have interrupted teacher supply (due to lack of provision for permanent positions and low fractional appointments), little or no budget for resources or teacher development, no documented and cumulative language curriculum and no integration with other curriculum areas.
In many schools the status of language teachers is extremely low. They are often isolated, do not participate in general curriculum planning and suffer work conditions which would not be tolerated by other primary teachers. This impacts on their ability to develop good programs.
In practice, the most important role of Japanese in many primary schools is to provide non-contact time to classroom teachers. Many teachers and administrators commented that while this nexus between Japanese time and non-contact time for classroom teachers remains, the ability to implement meaningful programs will be limited.
3.2.2 Primary Level Curriculum
Although curriculum documents or frameworks exist in all states and territories, in most they are broad and open to wide interpretation. In some states and territories, standards and frameworks are based on a time allocation well above that which is actually offered in most schools and are therefore unrealistic and ineffective as a guide to curriculum and assessment. Teachers, confronted with such curriculum documents, have reinterpreted them to suit their own situations and ideas.
In several states and territories there is no common agreement on what specific content should be taught at different year levels, or what the specific outcomes should be, even within the same state, territory or district. There is a huge variation in the content of courses in terms of coverage of script, topics, grammar and vocabulary, and cultural and intercultural content. The focus of teachers varies, so that students in one school may achieve as much in one or two years as those at another do in four or five years, even where time allocations do not differ substantially.
A previous study (Spence-Brown, 2005, 2006) by one of the authors found that it was fairly common practice in primary schools for there to be no detailed progressive and comprehensive curriculum in existence specifying outcomes across a range of year levels. Teachers often write their program term by term, adjusting it to suit materials that they find along the way. It is also common for teachers to teach the same basic lesson at every year level in a given week, with some adjustment to make it developmentally appropriate. Otherwise excellent and enthusiastic teachers in schools with well-supported language programs appeared to have little understanding of what students had studied in previous years, and little idea of exactly what should be covered by the time they left. In many secondary schools, textbooks provide the unofficial curriculum, but very few primary schools use a textbook.
Students often learn vocabulary and sentence patterns tied to individual topics by rote, and gain little ability to generate their own utterances except within a very limited range. In many programs vocabulary and sentence patterns are not systematically recycled or built upon. Assessment practices are also poor, or nonexistent, and rarely focus on longer-term learning.
This trend is sometimes reinforced by efforts to include Japanese in the topic-based ‘integrated curriculum’ common in primary schools. Students spend a lot of effort learning quite specialised vocabulary (for example, pertaining to ‘recycling’) which is not easily incorporated in subsequent units. Teachers struggle to find activities that are relevant to the theme, and are engaging, but which also develop language competence in a systematic way. Teachers remarked that integrating Japanese with the mainstream curriculum usually means adapting Japanese to suit other curriculum areas in superficial ways, but rarely involves the reinforcement of learning relevant to Japanese outside Japanese classes.
Some programs pay great attention to language and literacy development, while others are culturally based, with less importance placed on language acquisition.
Many Japanese teachers place a heavy emphasis on making Japanese ‘fun’ and ‘enjoyable’. Teachers often argue that with only 30–40 minutes a week, a systematic program which builds language competence is almost impossible. (See Case Study 2, page 40.) Instead, they focus on offering engaging learning experiences, often introducing interesting aspects of culture involving games and songs, which they hope will give students a positive experience of learning. The knowledge that when their students reach high school they will almost universally be made to start learning Japanese again with complete beginners is a further disincentive to the construction of a more carefully planned, challenging and sequential curriculum.
In some schools, teachers build an engaging and culturally rich curriculum around a sequential language program which results in meaningful communicative competence, as well as other kinds of learning. Teachers in such programs report that students respond well to challenges and often surprise them by the level of their achievements. Case Study 3, page 41, provides an example of such a program. In one way, it is unremarkable, as it merely does what any good primary school Japanese program should do, but it is certainly not typical. It is included as a way of showing what can be done by a well-trained and well-supported teacher in an environment that could be realistically provided in many schools, if authorities wished to give priority to doing so.
